bluegauze-blog

[bluegauze-blog]

The phenomenon about the eating cooked meat is a well documented process of health preservation, not only for hygiene, but also for a more effective transference of nutrients. The taste buds have evolved in accordance, as did the neurobiology of our digestive system, but our biology to process it is still the crux of our natural state to eating meat. Go read Herbert Watzack's research about our evolution from omnivours to coctivors, and the evolutionary benefit of it. It only enhances our capacity to eat meat, and there is absolutely nothing unnatural about it. Our current state of evolutionary development would not be possible had it not been for the discovery and adaptation of cooked food, and to say that's unnatural is to say that our natural state is prior to the homo erectus or even homo habilis, in which case the context goes back 150,000 and 90% of all animals today would, by that definition, no longer be "natural"

What exactly is the difference between killing a cow with a gun, or with a blade, or killing it with fangs and claws? The cow still dies, but with a bullet or knife, its dead in less then a second. Being eaten alive, that can take hours. You seem to think that death is the ultimate cruelty, but in the wild death is a constant threat no matter what kind of animal or place you are in. And in the wild it always more painful, and more agonizing. Being eaten alive, being toyed with, hung as bait, mummified, preserved, sucked dry, picked apart, poisoned, corroded, liquefied, crushed etc. We may use different tools, and different means, but we are not the only killers in the world, and we are far more efficient, and humane at it. Our behavior is just as natural as the wild predators that hunt for food every day.

You seem to think nature is a consistent and perfect state but its far from it. Nature evolves and adapts and is always struggling to dominate and subordinate. Of course we change and alter things, its natural to change, that's the whole point of natural selection, evolution, and adaptation. If we didn't change, we'd die. Every animal's the same. You honestly think nature didn't change or process their food? Bees process nector to honey to eat. Chimps cook their food over flames. Hot spring baboons boil their food, spiders preserve, and tons more. We are now able to safely eat more parts of the animal then ever before because we're able to cook it and process it, and save it. More people have access to food because of these advancements and it saves hundreds of millions of lives every day. Nature changes constantly, and you can look at every corner of the animal kingdom to see this fact.

Of course we looked at a pig and thought it was yummy, for the same reason we looked at a cow, an octopus, or shrimp, or lobster, or rat, or cockroach and thought, "hey I'm starving and need food. that looks amazingly delicious". It is only in western, privileged, and completely disassociated societies where people forget that these basic food sources are life and death for people. There are whole communities in Africa, India, Asia, where they do go and sink their teeth into the meat before even trying to cook it. 

Please note that you have not given me a single referable piece of evidence or practical example. Everything I've given you has been observed naturally, and can be found supported scientifically and socially on any educated resource. I have done years of research on subjects related to these, exactly where is your evidence because I have not found a single one that is scholarly credible and not from some homegrown conspiracy theorists basement. You have sidestepped the majority of my arguments. I'm still waiting to hear what your definition of a carnist's argument is compared to mine because from my knowledge by argument is night and day from theirs, as well as either concede or rebut my explanation on the fact the nutritional and scientific for our omnivorous diet; your hypocritical lifestyle where don't follow through fully with the philosophy that you preach (i see now you have an iphone as well, you know how much damage they do to the world? Monumental. I'm not one to usually care but even I find it so inhumane that I can't bring myself to buy an iphone); and the point on the complexities of human morality and the fallacy of judging people only on one aspect of their behaviour. 

Thank you for noticing my vocabulary, I've actually been working on it.

Firstly, it is not unnatural that we eat, hunt, domesticate and cultivate. It is a natural survivalistic behavior that is found in every aspect of the animal kingdom, as highly evolved species, we’ve simple become much better at it. All our actions have very logical, natural motivations behind….

[bluegauze-blog]

Your argument has changed from eating meat is unnatural to where our meat comes from is unnatural, please stay consistant.

Firstly, it is fact that our bodies are designed for meat. We have the proper digestive system, the proper enzymes, the proper nutrient processing, and the biological need for the nutritional values found within meat. Our natural diet is composed of a variety of nutritional sources, including meats, and in vegitarian diets, it is vital that certain foods are included in order to compensate for the lack of meat in the diet, the key word being compensate. Eating high protein foods such as lentils and soy to compensate for lack of protein, animal products such as dairy and eggs for lack of B12, etc. Some have to go so far as to take nutritional suppliaments in order to make up for the vitamin deficiency. The fact that our taste buds have evolved to find meat flavors appetizing is a sign that we are biologically designed for meat consumption, just as much as us finding vegetables appetizing is a sign that we are designed for vegetation consumption. If you were to try and feed meat to a cow, it would not just reject it, but it would develop extreme physical ailments, because its nature is not to consume meat.

Ultimately the natural default diet for a humans, save for genetic deficiencies, contains meat. Biologically, evolutionary, and naturally, we are omnivorousness. It is a cultural, and socially conscious choice to be vegetarian or vegan. It is, ironically, an unnatural to be vegetarian. 

As for our meat coming from unnatural sources, I again, would argue that that is untrue. We are not the only animals out there to cultivate our food. Insects have been doing that for much longer than we, and so have hundreds of marine animals. Parasites are the ultimate forms of livestock cultivation, and we know just how many of those there are in the world. They change the landscape, domesticate, and It is perfectly natural what we do, and we've gotten much more civil about it. In the wild, catching and eating a prey means a slow and agonizing death at the hand of your predator, slowly being eaten alive. It is neither quick, nor painless, and certainly not kind. Why is our cultivation so much more different? As a matter of fact our, our cultivation of livestock has taken those species out of natural endangerment, and ensured the prosperity of the species. You will never see poultry, or bovine, or swine on the endangered list. Farms literally rescued the bison, and buffallo, and we're doing the same for salmons, trout, cod, and tuna.

You say my argument is like all other carnists, but I'm not exactly sure what argument that is? Care to elaborate? 

It isn't a contradiction, and it's not because one act cancels the other out, it doesn't. Let's take the most over used example in the world: Adolf Hitler. To history he was a tyrant that committed crimes against humanity, crimes of atrocity, and crimes of war, that decimated cities, destroyed land, killed millions upon millions in cruel and atrocious ways. He was arrogant, violent, and all round "evil". But from the other side, to the Germans at the time he was a hero. He rescued a destroyed and weak Germany that had been crippled and was starving to death with no friends that wanted to aid them. He took this weak and broken country and made it strong again. His leadership saved millions of Germans from death. So was he a tyrant or was he a hero? It is not impossible for him to be both, because human beings are too complicated for such a simple classification. Your rapist in a planned parenthood clinic is the same. As a rapists he violated women/men, and harmed many people, and was unforgivable in their crimes. But at the planned parenthood clinic he may have saved the future of family, brought relief and comfort to people in extreme distress. It is not a contradiction to say that he was terrible as a rapist, but he was good as a planned parenthood attendant. You say that a good act does not cancel out a bad one. I agree with you. But conversely, a bad one does not cancel out a good act. The reality is that humanity is much more grey than black and white, and to think in such segregated terms is not just uninformed, but also very dangerous, and destructive. It's this kind of thinking that makes Israeli's unable to accept the Palistines, or India being unable to become peaceful with Pakistan over Kashmir. It's why North Korea will never see the world as decent and vice versa, and why the jihadists will never see any infidels as evil. There is, and has always been plenty of people who have done both good and bad and to say they were all bad or all good is just plain wrong. 

I can accept the that you'll use human achievement to trying to help animals, but shouldn't you be more consistent in your means? I usually not one to stand up for those hippies that only buy fair trade, and spend hours researching their clothes to make sure there's no animal byproducts, and their houses weren't built on nature reserves, but they practice what they preach, while fighting strongly for animal rights. They certainly don't drive cars, have tattoos (at least they wouldn't if they knew what's in them), and wear jeans, or any derivative of cotton. 

I do hope it's fairly evident that I'm a bit more learned in these subjects than most. I was fortunate enough to have a lot of real world experience to back up my academic education in formulating my perspectives. I await your reply.

Edit: I am also unsure if I tagged you properly in this repost, but I do hope you get it

I forgot all about this, and I am on my phone, so I’ll summarize. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, natural about where our meat and any animal product comes from NOR is it for survival, anymore. It’s not needed, and continuing such cruel, and monstrous behavior just because of what people told you growing up that you needed it, and just because it’s tasty are not valid reasons. An opinion will never surpass facts, and I’m sorry, but this is clearly your opinion. Those who take the time to question what they’ve been told their whole life, and research to see how their food gets to them, and what it takes to get there usually end up on my side of this conflict. You go into much more detail, but when it comes down to it, you have the same arguments as all carnists have. I won’t live in the wild. As I said, as long as I’m able and with these “human advancements”, I’ll use it in favor of animals. I will have a no kill shelter, I will provide permanent, or temporary residency for these animals, and however else I can help them. They are actually very contradicting. Just because you put some effort into giving back as long as you’re still taking, when did that ever justify the negative effects you have on things? It’s like “I’m a rapist, but I volunteer at planned parenthood!” there’s no justification. None. You contribute to negativity, that’s it. You can do everything else with a positive impact, but that never erases what you do that’s not good. honestly, though. I’m no expert, and rather than getting minimal information from me on any of this, research it. You have the whole world wide web at your fingertips. It’s there, and won’t hide what you’re trying to find out. You might have a better chance at grasping it

Firstly, it is not unnatural that we eat, hunt, domesticate and cultivate. It is a natural survivalistic behavior that is found in every aspect of the animal kingdom, as highly evolved species, we’ve simple become much better at it. All our actions have very logical, natural motivations behind….

[bluegauze-blog]

I hope this will be read

Firstly, it is not unnatural that we eat, hunt, domesticate and cultivate. It is a natural survivalistic behavior that is found in every aspect of the animal kingdom, as highly evolved species, we've simple become much better at it. All our actions have very logical, natural motivations behind. There are species of animals out there that reflects every single behavioral aspect, from eating meat (every carnivore), to hunting in excess and sadicious harm/torture to other animals (the dolphin comes to mind, as does hundreds of half beetles and bugs), domestication of lesser animals (primates have kept pets, to toy with till death), and cultivate (every hive minded colony), and I can go on. Animals have restructured as much of the landscape and world as we have to suit their own needs (beavers, bees, insect colonies, coral reefs), often times at the expense of other animals in their vicinity. I can appreciate how you can have a perception that all they do is use as much as they need and not much more, and that if we're able to function like that, many problems would be solved, but that has been proven to be false. When left unthreatened, every animal has shown the same kind of unrestrained indulgence that we humans demonstrate, from the most complex animals, to the smallest single cell organism. Nature is a cruel and unforgiving place, and animals display just as many of those "unnatural" behaviors as people do. And you didn't answer me on which of those diseases do you consider something we created? And which of them were selfish of us to treat.

Secondly, if you're going to advocate that people should have the capacity to live naturally, out there like the animals do, then why are you not demonstrating it? Why not forsake your car, your phone, the internet, your house, and go out there and live that life as an example. Many people do, and I know many people who do, and I have the utmost respect for them because they truly practice what they believe in. What confuses me about you is that you're obviously so passionate and outspoken about it, but I don't see you taking the same kind of dedication. 

And achievements is an important gauge of ones dedication and capacity. Without it, anyone can claim that they're the nicest person in the world, or the most sympathetic, or the most cruel, or the most manipulative or whatever. And I wouldn't really care about how one thinks of themselves as being the most whatever, but you've actually come to judge others on simply what you see in their eyes, or by things they've said.  That's just egotistical and arrogant. One must achieve through action a certain degree of credibility and capacity to judge. Otherwise, it's just plain mean spirited.

Also, a tree planing construction worker is not a contradiction. Neither is a meat eating wild life rescuer. A contradiction is when one aspect is in direct conflict with another, and therefore cannot be possible. Well it is perfectly possible as demonstrated by them. (also, she doesn't seek credit for it, she does it cus she likes planting trees. I use that example cus it worked here)

The problem is that life isn't simple, and it certain isn't black and white to say that there are good souls and bad souls. What about the ones in the middle? Where do they stand? A vegan who's pro choice? A pro life who's for capital punishment? A doctor who's against vaccinations? A humanitarian who's for the death penalty? Where do these people stand? What measure of good and bad do you use when the intentions don't necessarily reflect their actions? And in the animal kingdom, it gets even grayer. There are some sadistically cruel animals out there. The dolphin will literally torture wounded sharks till they die a slow death and then leave it. There are fungi that zombifies insects into become carriers for spores. Gorillas that hunt small animals, and give it to their young who are so brutal with these "pets" that they kill them before they know what happened. Worms that will burrow into the skin of their prey and live there, causing excruciating pain, and literally rotting their victims from the inside out in hopes that when it dies, flies and the like will carry the eggs from the carcass to go off and infect others. 

I can appreciate a disagreement and difference of opinion, lifestyle and choice, but what I have a hard time accepting is hypocracy, which is what i'm seeing here. If you refer back to my original question, I was asking how you're able to take all the liberties of animal use in society while still maintaining that you hold them in such a passionate high regard. The clothes that you wear, the car that you drive, the phone and computer that you're using, are built by a species that you despise, yet have no problems taking advantage of. The cloth from your clothes would not be possible without agricultural cultivation and domestication of livestock. The materials from all your electronics would not have been collected without massive landscaping and the habitation of thousands of species, and millions of animals. The tattoo ink in your tattoo more likely than not has glycerin in it, which is an animal derivative. And even if it doesn't, it was most likely animal tested before it was cleared to be used commercially. The wood in your house, the fabrics in your furniture, the materials on your foundations, every single book you own, every watt of electricity through your wires, and every drop of water that goes through your pipes. I don't know the kind of medical dependencies you've had, but at the very least if you were born in a hospital then you've benefited substantially from animal research. If you're going to be so vocal, so outspoken, and so passionate, and especially so judgmental to others, then be consistent. Go and live out in the wild, be completely independent, and fend for yourself, and don't rely on society, commerce, or medical advancement. 

As for why I'm taking this interest, firstly, as I said i'm bed ridden, and have more free time than usual, so I'm finding things to busy myself with, so when my friend showed me your tumblr and I found myself with actual time to respond and debate, I figured why not. Even then, this is only a minor distraction, hence my slow responses. I don't really have pictures to post, I'm not much for taking photos, and even when I do, its other people who take them so I don't have those photos. I'm bedridden because I have MS, and two weeks ago I lost function of my legs. And yes, I am one of those that directly benefits from animal research. So if all of a sudden I no longer reply, its cus I've either lost control of my whole body, or cus I'm dead. Or, I dunno, I got better and can get back to being productive again.